How Trump’s Highest-Profile Deportation Case Could Unravel

By Robert Alexander

Senior Crime & Court Reporter

ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member

A six-year-old procedural omission by an immigration judge has emerged as a central issue in the Trump administration’s effort to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented Salvadoran man whose case has stretched across multiple federal courts and drawn repeated scrutiny from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis.

The missing order—an overlooked step in 2019—may determine whether the administration can legally deport him at all.

Newsweek contacted the DOJ and attorneys for Abrego for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Friday.

Why It Matters

The fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia now hinges on a basic procedural omission that may unravel the Trump administration’s most high-profile deportation effort.

A 2019 immigration ruling protected him from being sent to El Salvador but never included a formal order of removal—an absence Judge Paula Xinis says undermines the government’s entire legal basis for detaining and attempting to deport him to a succession of third countries.

That missing order not only exposes Abrego to potentially unlawful custody, but also opens the door for renewed asylum claims, challenges the administration’s aggressive removal strategy, and raises broader due-process and separation-of-powers concerns as federal courts scrutinize how the case has been handled.

...

What To Know

The Missing 2019 Removal Order

On October 17, 2019, Baltimore Immigration Judge David Jones granted Kilmar Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador after finding credible evidence that he faced gang-related persecution.

Jones accepted Abrego’s assertion that "he could be targeted…based on gang-related threats to his family’s pupusa business," according to the judge’s 15-page ruling.

But Jones never issued a formal removal order to any country.

His decision did not specify where Abrego should be removed or even state that he was required to leave the United States.

That omission now sits at the center of Abrego’s legal battle.

At a court hearing on Thursday, November 20, 2025, it was made clear that Abrego’s immediate prospects for release from custody hinge on that missing step Jones failed to take six years earlier.

As Judge Paula Xinis stated: "There is no order of removal in the docket, in the record…You can’t fake it ’til you make it…You have to have the order. It’s got to be an order memorialized somewhere and I don’t have it."

Without a final removal order, the government may lack the authority to deport Abrego to any country, including the third-country destinations it has proposed in recent months—Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and, most recently, Liberia.

Andrew Rossman, Abrego’s attorney, argued that the government’s entire position collapses in the absence of a valid order.

"It would be an obvious due process violation to remove someone without a final order of removal," he told the court. "The entire structure the government has built crumbles if there is no final order of removal."

Rossman further contended that the government violated his client’s due process rights by using him as a "poster child" for punitive immigration policies.

"The history shows that there was bad faith," he said. "The history shows that there was malice on the government’s part."

He urged Judge Xinis to release Abrego to his family in Maryland while he awaits trial, unless the government can produce a valid removal order.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign countered that Jones’s 2019 ruling implicitly constituted a removal order.

"I think this represents, necessarily, the final order of removal," he said.

Xinis rejected that argument: "But [Jones] made a mistake and there is no order of removal."

A Dispute Over Where Abrego Can Be Sent

Meanwhile, Abrego had indicated he was willing to be deported to Costa Rica, which he said was prepared to accept him.

The Trump administration instead cycled through a series of African countries before settling on Liberia, which agreed to receive him.

John Cantu, the acting assistant director for ICE’S removal operations, testified that Liberia provided assurances to the State Department that Abrego would not face persecution or torture there and would not be returned to El Salvador, the country from which U.S. authorities are barred from removing him under the 2019 order.

Rising Judicial Scrutiny

Yet the administration has struggled to justify its abandonment of Costa Rica.

Cantu admitted he could not explain the government’s reasoning, stating that his knowledge came from a "five minute Teams call" with a State Department lawyer and that he did not understand portions of his own sworn declaration.

"This witness said nothing today…Mr. Cantu knew nothing about anything," Xinis said.

The contradictions have heightened judicial scrutiny.

When government counsel argued that Costa Rica was no longer viable, Xinis asked: "Why is the government standing in the way of that?"

She described Abrego’s willingness to accept Costa Rica as a "concession because he’s been to CECOT and back," referring to the Salvadoran anti-terrorism prison where he had been wrongfully held earlier in the year.

The case now reflects an unusual convergence of procedural error and executive-branch resistance.

The principle running through Judge Xinis’s remarks was clear: "A removal order is the spine of any deportation proceeding. Without it, every downstream action—from detention to third-country negotiations—lacks a lawful foundation."

Cantu’s inability to answer basic questions underscored the disconnect between the government’s assertions and the evidentiary gaps exposed in court.

As proceedings continue, Abrego remains detained in Pennsylvania under a court order blocking his deportation.

Judge Xinis warned that her ruling will take time but noted that a negotiated resolution remains possible: "If the government wants to moot it, it sounds like Mr. Abrego is still open to going to Costa Rica."

The Tennessee Case

Separate from the immigration litigation unfolding in Maryland, the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the Middle District of Tennessee has continued to intensify.

In a November 13 filing, federal prosecutors signaled their intent to introduce a broad range of "other acts" evidence at trial, portraying Abrego as part of a long-running smuggling conspiracy and arguing that alleged MS-13 ties form part of the "complete story" of the charges rather than inadmissible prior-bad-acts material.

The Justice Department also indicated it may seek to introduce sensitive evidence—including domestic-violence filings and communications with a minor—if the defense challenges the government’s account.

At recent hearings, the Tennessee proceedings have drawn close scrutiny from the bench as judges examine whether the human smuggling charges could constitute retaliatory prosecution linked to Abrego’s broader immigration dispute.

Prosecutors were questioned over the government’s shifting removal plans, including its decision to pursue deportation to Liberia instead of Costa Rica, Abrego’s designated country of choice.

They were also asked to address how the absence of a valid removal order—now central to the Maryland habeas case—intersects with the criminal prosecution.

The overlap between the two cases has left the Tennessee matter deeply entangled with the unresolved legal issues still unfolding before Judge Xinis.

Who Is Kilmar Abrego Garcia?

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran national who lived in Maryland with his wife and children before being wrongfully deported in March 2025 to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison, despite a 2019 order prohibiting his removal to that country due to credible threats from the Barrio 18 gang.

He was returned to the United States in June 2025 to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

His case now encompasses immigration litigation, a criminal prosecution, and a dispute over the government’s authority to deport him without a valid removal order.

Timeline of Events: October 2019—November 2025

October 17, 2019—Baltimore Immigration Judge David Jones grants Kilmar Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador based on credible fear of persecution but does not issue a formal removal order, a procedural omission now central to the ongoing litigation.
March 15, 2025—Despite the 2019 order prohibiting his removal to El Salvador, the Trump administration wrongfully deports Abrego to the CECOT mega-prison as part of a mass deportation flight.
April 4—17, 2025—Judge Paula Xinis orders the government to return Abrego to the U.S.; the administration resists, but the Fourth Circuit upholds the order.
June 6, 2025—Abrego is returned to the U.S. to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee, to which he pleads not guilty.
August 22, 2025—Released from criminal custody in Tennessee but immediately taken back into ICE custody in Maryland.
August—October 2025—Government cycles through proposed removal destinations: Uganda, Eswatini, and Ghana, despite Costa Rica expressing willingness to take him.
October 24, 2025—DHS announces Liberia has agreed to accept Abrego.
October 27, 2025—Judge Xinis presses DOJ on why Costa Rica is being bypassed, noting Abrego has "no cultural ties, no ties whatsoever" to Liberia.
November 8, 2025—Government asks Xinis to lift the block on removal to Liberia; Abrego’s lawyers argue no lawful removal order exists.
November 13, 2025—Federal prosecutors in Tennessee file a Rule 404(b) notice signaling plans to introduce extensive "other acts" evidence, including alleged gang ties and sensitive personal material, in Abrego’s upcoming criminal trial.
November 20, 2025—In Tennessee, prosecutors face judicial scrutiny over whether the human smuggling charges may constitute retaliatory prosecution and are questioned about how the missing removal order intersects with the criminal case.
November 20, 2025—In Maryland, ICE official John Cantu testifies he lacks knowledge about key removal decisions, prompting Xinis to criticize the government for presenting witnesses who "knew nothing about anything," and raising further doubt about the government’s ability to lawfully deport Abrego.

What People Are Saying

Judge Paula Xinis reprimanding the Justice Department for attempting to move forward with a Liberia removal interview at the same time the hearing was underway, said: "That’s not fair play and it’s not going to happen in my court."

Andrew Rossman, attorney for Abrego emphasizing the constitutional consequences of the missing removal order during arguments before Judge Xinis, said: "It’s critically important…it would be an obvious due process violation to remove someone without a final order of removal."

What Happens Next

Judge Paula Xinis is now weighing whether the government can legally continue detaining or deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia after discovering that his 2019 immigration case never included a formal removal order—an omission that may invalidate the administration’s entire basis for holding him and seeking to send him to multiple third countries.

If the government cannot produce a valid order or a credible, lawful plan for removal, Xinis could order his release, allow him to reopen his immigration case, or impose sanctions for repeated failures to provide knowledgeable witnesses or comply with court directives.

Meanwhile, the separate federal court in Tennessee is still reviewing whether the criminal charges against him amount to retaliatory prosecution, leaving both the immigration and criminal tracks in flux as the next judicial decisions approach.

Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines